Impact of Gloves and Mask Use on Epidermal Barrier Function in Health Care Workers.
Adult
COVID-19
/ prevention & control
Epidermis
/ physiopathology
Erythema
/ etiology
Female
Gloves, Surgical
/ adverse effects
Health Personnel
Humans
Male
Masks
/ adverse effects
Middle Aged
N95 Respirators
/ adverse effects
Nitriles
Occupational Exposure
Personal Protective Equipment
/ adverse effects
SARS-CoV-2
Skin
/ physiopathology
Skin Temperature
/ physiology
Water Loss, Insensible
/ physiology
Journal
Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug
ISSN: 2162-5220
Titre abrégé: Dermatitis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101207335
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
entrez:
15
1
2021
pubmed:
16
1
2021
medline:
26
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Coronavirus disease 2019 has rapidly spread all over the world. Personal protective equipment (PPE) including masks and gloves is needed to avoid transmission. Adverse skin reactions associated with PPE have been described, but there is no information regarding objective measures to assess skin impairment related to PPE. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of using facial mask and nitrile gloves on epidermal barrier function and skin homeostasis. A cross-sectional study was designed. Thirty-four health care workers wearing nitrile gloves and a mask for 2 hours were included. Transepidermal water loss, stratum corneum hydration, erythema, and temperature were measured. Transepidermal water loss (31.11 vs 14.24 g·m-2·h-1), temperature (33.29°C vs 32.57°C), and erythema were significantly greater at the area covered by gloves compared with the noncovered area. Transepidermal water loss (22.82 vs 13.69 g·m-2·h-1), temperature, and erythema (411.43 vs 335.52 arbitrary units) were significantly increased at the area covered by mask, whereas stratum corneum hydration was lower. Transepidermal water loss was greater at the area covered by a surgical mask than at a filtering respirator mask coded filtering facepiece 2 (27.09 vs 18.02 g·m-2·h-1, P = 0.034). Skin homeostasis and epidermal barrier function may be impaired by gloves and mask use. High-quality PPE should be provided, and adequate skin prevention measures should be implemented to reduce epidermal barrier damage.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Coronavirus disease 2019 has rapidly spread all over the world. Personal protective equipment (PPE) including masks and gloves is needed to avoid transmission. Adverse skin reactions associated with PPE have been described, but there is no information regarding objective measures to assess skin impairment related to PPE.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of using facial mask and nitrile gloves on epidermal barrier function and skin homeostasis.
METHODS
METHODS
A cross-sectional study was designed. Thirty-four health care workers wearing nitrile gloves and a mask for 2 hours were included. Transepidermal water loss, stratum corneum hydration, erythema, and temperature were measured.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Transepidermal water loss (31.11 vs 14.24 g·m-2·h-1), temperature (33.29°C vs 32.57°C), and erythema were significantly greater at the area covered by gloves compared with the noncovered area. Transepidermal water loss (22.82 vs 13.69 g·m-2·h-1), temperature, and erythema (411.43 vs 335.52 arbitrary units) were significantly increased at the area covered by mask, whereas stratum corneum hydration was lower. Transepidermal water loss was greater at the area covered by a surgical mask than at a filtering respirator mask coded filtering facepiece 2 (27.09 vs 18.02 g·m-2·h-1, P = 0.034).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Skin homeostasis and epidermal barrier function may be impaired by gloves and mask use. High-quality PPE should be provided, and adequate skin prevention measures should be implemented to reduce epidermal barrier damage.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33449481
doi: 10.1097/DER.0000000000000682
pii: 01206501-202101000-00011
doi:
Substances chimiques
Nitriles
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
57-62Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 American Contact Dermatitis Society. All Rights Reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Johns Hopkins University & Medicine. Coronavirus Resource Center 2020. Available at: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html. Accessed August 11, 2020.
Çelebi G, Pişkin N, Bekleviç AÇ, et al. Specific risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 transmission among health care workers in a university hospital. Am J Infect Control 2020;S0196-6553(20):30765–30763.
Johnston LB, Conly JM. Severe acute respiratory syndrome: what have we learned two years later? Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 2004;15(6):309–312.
Wang D, Hu B, Hu C, et al. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus–infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA 2020;323(11):1061–1069.
The Lancet. COVID-19: protecting health-care workers. Lancet 2020;395(10228):922.
Pappa S, Ntella V, Giannakas T, et al. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behav Immun 2020;88:901–907.
Ong JJY, Bharatendu C, Goh Y, et al. Headaches associated with personal protective equipment—a cross-sectional study among frontline healthcare workers during COVID-19. Headache 2020;60(5):864–877.
Jiang Q, Song S, Zhou J, et al. The prevalence, characteristics, and prevention status of skin injury caused by personal protective equipment among medical staff in fighting COVID-19: a multicenter, cross-sectional study. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) 2020;9(7):357–364.
Lin P, Zhu S, Huang Y, et al. Adverse skin reactions among healthcare workers during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak: a survey in Wuhan and its surrounding regions. Br J Dermatol 2020;183:190–192.
Zhang B, Zhai R, Ma L. COVID-19 epidemic: skin protection for health care workers must not be ignored. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2020 May 2. doi:10.1111/jdv.16573.
doi: 10.1111/jdv.16573
Singh M, Pawar M, Bothra A, et al. Personal protective equipment induced facial dermatoses in healthcare workers managing coronavirus disease 2019. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2020;34(8):e378–e380.
Tabary M, Araghi F, Nasiri S, et al. Dealing with skin reactions to gloves during the COVID-19 pandemic. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2020;1–2. Published online 2020 May 8. doi:10.1017/ice.2020.212.
doi: 10.1017/ice.2020.212
Fluhr JW, Feingold KR, Elias PM. Transepidermal water loss reflects permeability barrier status: validation in human and rodent in vivo and ex vivo models. Exp Dermatol 2006;15(7):483–492.
Alexander H, Brown S, Danby S, et al. Research techniques made simple: transepidermal water loss measurement as a research tool. J Invest Dermatol 2018;138(11):2295–2300.e1.
Akdeniz M, Gabriel S, Lichterfeld-Kottner A, et al. Transepidermal water loss in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis update. Br J Dermatol 2018;179(5):1049–1055.
du Plessis J, Stefaniak A, Eloff F, et al. International guidelines for the in vivo assessment of skin properties in non-clinical settings: part 2. Transepidermal water loss and skin hydration. Skin Res Technol 2013;19(3):265–278.
Takahashi H, Tsuji H, Minami-Hori M, et al. Defective barrier function accompanied by structural changes of psoriatic stratum corneum. J Dermatol 2014;41(2):144–148.
Khosrowpour Z, Ahmad Nasrollahi S, Ayatollahi A, et al. Effects of four soaps on skin trans-epidermal water loss and erythema index. J Cosmet Dermatol 2019;18(3):857–861.
Shahzad Y, Louw R, Gerber M, et al. Breaching the skin barrier through temperature modulations. J Control Release 2015;202:1–13.
Hamming I, Timens W, Bulthuis ML, et al. Tissue distribution of ACE2 protein, the functional receptor for SARS coronavirus. A first step in understanding SARS pathogenesis. J Pathol 2004;203(2):631–637.
Balato A, Ayala F, Bruze M, et al. European Task Force on Contact Dermatitis statement on coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) outbreak and the risk of adverse cutaneous reactions. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2020;34:e353–e354.
Chen X, Shang Y, Yao S, et al. Perioperative care provider's considerations in managing patients with the COVID-19 infections. Transl Perioper Pain Med 2020;7:216–223.
Long H, Zhao H, Chen A, et al. Protecting medical staff from skin injury/disease caused by personal protective equipment during epidemic period of COVID-19: experience from China. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2020;34(5):919–921.
Guertler A, Moellhoff N, Schenck TL, et al. Onset of occupational hand eczema among healthcare workers during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: comparing a single surgical site with a COVID-19 intensive care unit. Contact Dermatitis 2020;83:108–114.
Antonov D, Kleesz P, Elsner P, et al. Impact of glove occlusion on cumulative skin irritation with or without hand cleanser-comparison in an experimental repeated irritation model. Contact Dermatitis 2013;68(5):293–299.
Wetzky U, Bock M, Wulfhorst B, et al. Short- and long-term effects of single and repetitive glove occlusion on the epidermal barrier. Arch Dermatol Res 2009;301(8):595–602.
Lan J, Song Z, Miao X, et al. Skin damage among health care workers managing coronavirus disease—2019. J Am Acad Dermatol 2020;82(5):1215–1216.
Luo J, Hu H. Thermally activated TRPV3 channels. Curr Top Membr 2014;74:325–364.
Xue X, Mi Z, Wang Z, et al. High expression of ACE2 on keratinocytes reveals skin as a potential target for SARS-CoV-2. J Invest Dermatol 2020;S0022-202X(20)31602-X. [Epub ahead of print, 2020 May 23].
Yan Y, Chen H, Chen L, et al. Consensus of Chinese experts on protection of skin and mucous membrane barrier for health-care workers fighting against coronavirus disease 2019. Dermatol Ther 2020;e13310.
Gheisari M, Araghi F, Moravvej H, et al. Skin reactions to non-glove personal protective equipment: an emerging issue in the COVID-19 pandemic. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2020;34:e297–e298.
Wa CV, Maibach HI. Mapping the human face: biophysical properties. Skin Res Technol 2010;16(1):38–54.
Szepietowski JC, Matusiak Ł, Szepietowska M, et al. Face mask-induced itch: a self-questionnaire study of 2,315 responders during the COVID-19 pandemic. Acta Derm Venereol 2020;100:adv00152.
Narang I, Sardana K, Bajpai R, et al. Seasonal aggravation of acne in summers and the effect of temperature and humidity in a study in a tropical setting. J Cosmet Dermatol 2019;18(4):1098–1104.
Cherrie JW, Apsley A, Cowie H, et al. Effectiveness of face masks used to protect Beijing residents against particulate air pollution. Occup Environ Med 2018;75(6):446–452.
Kim MN. What type of face mask is appropriate for everyone-mask-wearing policy amidst COVID-19 pandemic? J Korean Med Sci 2020;35(20):e186.
Jung S, Schleusener J, Knorr F, et al. Influence of polyester spacer fabric, cotton, chloroprene rubber, and silicone on microclimatic and morphologic physiologic skin parameters in vivo. Skin Res Technol 2019;25(3):389–398.
Cowdell F, Jadotte YT, Ersser SJ, et al. Hygiene and emollient interventions for maintaining skin integrity in older people in hospital and residential care settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;1:CD011377.
Reszke R, Bialynicki-Birula R, Lindner K, et al. Itch in elderly people: a cross-sectional study. Acta Derm Venereol 2019;99(11):1016–1021.
Zheng Z, Peng F, Xu B, et al. Risk factors of critical & mortal COVID-19 cases: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. J Infect 2020;81:e16–e25.
Ye L, Wang Z, Li Z, et al. Validation of GPSkin Barrier® for assessing epidermal permeability barrier function and stratum corneum hydration in humans. Skin Res Technol 2019;25(1):25–29.
Nedelec B, Forget NJ, Hurtubise T, et al. Skin characteristics: normative data for elasticity, erythema, melanin, and thickness at 16 different anatomical locations. Skin Res Technol 2016;22(3):263–275.